justme1961
Gold
Reged: 03/11/08
Posts: 129
Loc: NH
|
|
My ex currently owes me over $12,000 in child support and alimony plus additional amounts for extraordinary/medical expenses and legal fees. He stopped paying alimony last fall and child support in February of this year.
So, sometime in March/April 2008 he "lost " his job. When I called the child support office, they told me he had a claim in for unemployment (which does not necessarily mean he was approved for benefits) and I would still receive child support from his unemployment benefits. I never received anything. I called 2 weeks ago and was told he had started a job a week prior and it would take about 30 days for a check to be mailed to me. I found out the job he took is not even in his field and it is temporary-so he is WAY under-employed.
I tend to think since I never received a payment from the state, he never received unemployed benefits. Which means he probably quit his job. What other explanation could there be? If you were entitled to collect, why wouldn’t you?
Does it matter if he quit his job? We were divorced in NH and we both still live here. We have a hearing next week. We both have lawyers.
|
gigi
Platinum
Reged: 11/06/06
Posts: 5049
|
|
If you're entitled to collect unemployment and you prefer to work and try to earn your keep, you would find another job and not collect unemployment. Even if the job were not stellar, you'd keep it so maybe you could TRY to take care of your obligations. You'd not necessarily be happy to just live off the public dole and wait out the end of your unemployment entitlement before looking for something else.
I'd say he's a good guy trying to do the right thing and the agencies aren't yet caught up with the paperwork. The problem with putting a government beaurocracy in charge of collecting child support is that it never comes straight from him to you... it always goes through some process... they have to get his HR deparemtnt notified, he has to get his first paycheck, the HR department has to cut a separate check & send it to child support, child support has to cash it, count it, credit it to your ex's account & send a new check out to you. The states that have turned child support into a version of a check card or bank card have at least one of the steps cut out of the process, but it's NEVER as fast as if you were just collecting it directly from him.
Unfortunately for you, there are so many women out there who would collect directly from thier exes and insist that the payments never arrived, so most of the payers are now refusing to pay outside fo the agencies, to make certain they get credit for all the payments they make. Which means it's not like you're going to be able to get him to pay it to you directly.
Since you seem so suspicious of his motives, maybe ask a few more questions... what person would voluntarily resign a good paying job in order to take a lesser paying job with the knowledge that it would put them behind in child support and make their ex & all kinds of government agencies chase them down and nag about being behind?
Not many would do that. Some are hoping to hide from their ex, getting money under the table & such, but they don't take a new job with legit pay that's less than before JUST so they can find an excuse to reduce the child support by a few hundred $$. In most cases, a person who earns... oh, let's say $4000 a month... will pay $1000 a month in child support... this is not an accurate figure, because the truth is usually that peeople earn a whole lot MORE than that and pay a whole lot LESS... but for this example, we'll use numbers that will really benefit the receiver of support...
If he quit and started a job that only earned him $2000 a month, he'd be paying out maybe $500 a month in support... cut the pay in half, cut the support in half... it's never a formula quite as exact as that, but let's just say it is for the purpose of simplicity... Now... his HOURS are not cut, just the AMOUNT he's getting per hour.
HE STILL has to go to work every day at 8, still doesn't get home till 6, still doesn't have enough time in the week to see the kids for more than a few hours after work in the evenings. His rent hasn't gone down, he still eats, and he still needs a telephone, electricity, water. And to get a cut in his child support, he's taken $2000 less in pay. He started out with ... after child support... $3000 to live off of. He ends up with... after a cut in pay and a cut in child support... $1500 to live off of.
Why would he do that? Well, usually, he wouldn't. Every once in a while we hear of a guy who is willing to live in poverty and deprive his kids and dodge the law and build up an arrearage in order to see his ex angry... but most men do not do that. And the ones who do will do more than a single job change, will not usually take a job change that's easy to get... will usually try to find a way to get paid under the table so there's no record of their true income.
The whole country is having financial problems. Don't assume your ex is doing this for wrong reasons. He may sincerely be having financial problems. And even if there is some anger involved, some resentments of the support payments or whatever ... it's quite possible that your anger and suspicion and talking about him like a deadbeat is just making it worse. This is the father of your child and you need to find a way to be a cooperative co-parent. Isn't there some way you could consider NOT accusing him of wrongdoing and asking if there's anything you can do to help? Maybe you have a friend who could help him find a better job, or something. Or if you can't do that because no one you know is hiring because... well, financial hard times are all over.. .at least... not accusing him of evil motives?
Yes, an arrearage is bad, yes, it's horrible that you aren't getting alimony any more. But it's probably got nothing to do with him thinking he can mess with you and give your kids less by taking a voluntary cut in pay.
|
justme1961
Gold
Reged: 03/11/08
Posts: 129
Loc: NH
|
|
Yes, a normal person would not quit his high-paying job to spite his ex-but he is not normal. (12 years ago he quit his job-we worked together-to cover up an affair he was having w/no prospect of a new one.) I am suspicious of his motives because I do not trust him and he has given me plenty of reason not too. I am sick to death of people telling me to be a cooperative co-parent. I am the ONLY one who IS a cooperative co-parent. I have consistently kept him informed of news about the kids. I have basically let him have them whenever he wanted because I feel it is important for my kids to have a good relationship with their father. Unfortunately he has not reciprocated.
I will tell you have never met a more twisted person in your life. Most people think I am the bitter ex-wife (I'm not I am HAPPY to be rid of him),until they really get to know him and what he is like. What kind of father would have his own son arrested for fighting with his sister in an attempt to take custody with the ultimate goal of me paying child support to him? HE DID!
Yes, I realize the economy sucks. But, any person who was suffering financially would not be throwing parties, dining out and shopping up a storm. Maybe now you know more details, you will understand my point.
|
ttina
Platinum
Reged: 02/28/08
Posts: 398
|
|
justme... breathe.... calm down. I am where you are. I was sooooo angry a couple weeks ago I could just spit. If your ex did not recieve benifits it could be that he quit or was fired for a reason within his control. Unemployment is not easy to get if you quit, unless you are unable (ha ha ha my ex's excuse) to work medically. Then benefits are only for a limited time. It sucks that he is being this way.... if he doesn't file for modification he won't get one. IF he doesn't pay he will be in arears. You can't make him stand up and be responsible.... ooohhh how I've tried.
Gigi, you are thinking logically as far as why someone wouldn't quit a good paying job. Let me give you some illogical reasons.... Random drug tests, not wanting to go into work consistantly, personality conflicts, disagreements with management, because something more "fun" comes up, being demoted because of poor performance, not being promoted because of average preformance..... the list goes on and on. My ex used to work in the same location as I do.... he quit after he totaled the company work van during unauthorized use. Our boss was going to keep him, but b/c ex would have to work in the building instead of on the road ex felt he should quit. Some people don't think logically or even think beyond the next few hours.
|
gigi
Platinum
Reged: 11/06/06
Posts: 5049
|
|
TTina, your ex is common for lots of derelicts. He quits because he doesn't want to work. It's VERY logical, though stupid. That's very different from waht the original poster is suggesting, which is that she's got an ex who can and does work, earns a decent living when he does, and has no reason other than wanting to evade child support and alimony for quitting. This is a person who is not living at the edge of sanity/sobriety/anger management issues.
I often tell people to look at the track record of the person they're dating to figure out if they're ever going to be reliable in the future, if theyr'e going to cheat or lie or spend more tan they earn ... if they're going to be lazy or a perpetual dreamer who never gets anythign done... I mean, you don't marry a fat man expecting him to shape up or a smoker expecting her to quit, so why marry a party guy expecting him to become suddenly responsible?
It's a mistake we ALL make in our youth... but after we're divorced, we hopefully know our priorities a little better than "he's cute, and he wants to be a doctor someday"... and we'll be able to actually SEE if he did well in college, went to medical school, and actually FOLLOWED his dream rather than just talked about it.
I married a perpetual dreamer first time out. He was always chasing the next best thing, but the reality was that I earned the stable income and his was up & down & sometimes non-existent. I'm rid of him for a reason. He's gone bankrupt since then. If we had kids I'm sure he'd be in arrears. I'd never accuse him of being in arrears because he's evil or doesn't want to support his kids or is trying to hurt me... it's clear to me... he's the type who can't maintain a single stable income. When it's good, it's very, very good for him... but when it's bad, he's bankrupt. That's just who he is. That's part of why I could'nt be with him any more (a small part of it, there were much bigger problems in MY first marriage).
You are not one whose ex is in arrears becasue he's bein gvindictive to you. The original poster says her ex is. That's my point of contention. It's one thing to recognize a person as being human, having failings... to recognize that you made a bad choice for a first husband... to recognize that he's never going to live up to his responsibilities for more than a minute at a time. It's another thing altogether to attribute such evil to him.
I'm not saying that it's not possible for a person to quit a job out of spite, just VERY rare. And certainly not the thing that one should think of FIRST when the last time he did something so radical was 12 years ago, and evne if the 12 intervening years were full of anger and hatred, if he kept his job for his own needs and fulfilled his own needs with it... even if he was messing with the child supprot & fighting the alimony requests & whatever... it does not follow that evil intent to mess with the ex is the FIRST thing we should look at if he leaves a job.
It's one thing to call the ex a loser in general, it's another thing altogether to call him an evil type who intentionally woudl cut his nose off, despite his face, just to keep food of his own kids' plates.
Now... the fact that he's going out, having a good time, eating well, buying stuff... that's another discussion altogether. WE never know where that stuff, where the financing for something like that, is coming from. We've had some long discussions on here about whether someone deserved to eat at a restaurant or get thier nails done when they're claiming the child support is not enough or too much... The issue of whether or not you have any right to look at your ex's lifestyle and make judgment on it is a whole 'nother topic... and if he's actually spending money or if he's engaging in an ill-advised credit card increase is a big question. Somepeople, when they realize they're about to go bankrupt, will go on a huge spree and max out thier credit cards in the nowledge that they'll never have to pay for this stuff and pretty soon they're going to have to start living much more cheaply. It's a tough thing to do... sit & watch as the ex overspends, without comment.
The original poster's ex is spending on stuff she disapproves of. Sorry. She has no right to control it or to comment on it. Does she even know where the money is coming from to pay for his lifestyle and she knows that he's NOT being taken out by a girlfriend, that his dinners are NOT being supplied by his parents... that he is NOT ruining his credit in order to keep up appearances between jobs.
The assumption that he's quitting a good, hgh payign job forth epurpose of keeping food out of his kids' mouth is what's my concern. I just don't agree that it's a good assumption to make.
Your ex is a louse, a leech, a lazy bum. it's a nasty thing to say, but given his history, it makes sense. Hers, however, quit one job more than a decade ago over issues involving an affair, and now she assumes that his job issus today are based upon something more than being a bum... that he is worse than a leach... that he's an evil guy who intends to mess with her even if it means havin gles for himself, who would keep food out of his kids' mouths rather than work at a job he is able to work at.
I think what she is saying about her ex is truly a lot more horrible than what you're saying about yours.
|
justme1961
Gold
Reged: 03/11/08
Posts: 129
Loc: NH
|
|
Gigi-
You obviously don't get it. He is not even considering the kids-it is all about him.
I do know he is not running up his credit cards because he is way behind-his creditors are constantly calling MY house looking for him. He drained our son's bank account-the money in the account was birthday & Christmas gifts from MY family-he just happened to be the one who took my son to the bank to open the account-which had to have his name on it because my son was too young. Is that a nice person? As for his lifestyle-I COULD CARE LESS!
How do you know my ex is not a louse? 8 affairs in a 15 marriage, 3 DUI's, socking away money without my knowledge.A friend of my daughter's told her they are always buying pot and coke at the restaurant he works at. Ya, he is real gem!
|
gigi
Platinum
Reged: 11/06/06
Posts: 5049
|
|
He may very well BE a louse. Your way of explaining it though is not persuasive. Saying he's not running up the credit cards because his creditors keep calling you to try to collect ... well, it's not a logical conclusion. The logical conclusion from hearing that someone's creditors are chasing his ex is that he IS living off credit, NOT earning a whole bunch of new money that he's spending, and therefore his debt issue IS a problem for him (and the fact that he's making it your issue is what makes him a louse).
The fact that you mentioned the nice dinners and nice life he's had for himself shows that you DO care about his lifestyle, despite your protests to the contrary.
Having drained his own kids' bank accounts is horrible, but does not in any way prove that he's not in desparate straits of his own making. It kind of proves the opposite point of what you were trying to say to begin with, which was that he's in this situation voluntarily, that he is living high off the hog and starving your kids out intentionally just for the purpose of avoiding support, that he is working at a cheaper job on purpose. Your thread was to figure out whether he voluntarily quit or whether he was truly laid off as he seems to be claiming. All your evidence points to being involuntarily laid off.
This doesn't mean he's not a louse and you're not having a hard time, just that your initial premise was NOT the logical necessary conclusion that you were suggesting.
He works at a restaurant and uses pot & cocaine? did he really even have a great steady job to quit, or has he alwasy been a job hopper. If he's always had a hard time keeping a job and is a druggie to boot, then say so. It doesn't look near as bad to you if you say that stuff than if you say he's a high earner with a steady job who voluntarily quits and takes a lower paying job because he doesn't want ot pay support. ... the idea that a steady high earner would voluntarily trash their own career and finances out of spite is not logical. however, if he was never such a steady person, if he's always got a scam around every corner, is always trying to duck out of work, is losing jobs on a regular basis, buys an duses drugs on the job... well... say so.
if that's the pictrue of who he is, then he's clearly NOT intentionally losing jobs as you initially claimed... what's happening is that he's a real jerk and drug addict who is not a very good father and would rather drain his kid's accounts than come down off his high and work a real job. And if he's like this with you he's probably like this with employers and so involuntarily losing jobs is more credible than intentionally leaving jobs.
I don't know what stage of the divorce process you're in, but if you're on your way to court for any part of it, you'll find that you'll be more successful if you don't accuse him of being evil and an intentionally bad father who COULD do better without treatment, but rather accuse him of being... sick, lazy, addicted. You have EVIDENCE
of him being an addict (3 duis) and so THAT is a CREDIBLE complaint that can be backed up with facts.
The facts you're presenting with the intent to prove that he's quitting jobs just to mess with you and just to avoid support... it simply does not prove what you're claiming it does.
|
justme1961
Gold
Reged: 03/11/08
Posts: 129
Loc: NH
|
|
Gigi-
Some facts-
I have been divorced for 4 years.
HE does not work at a restaurant my daughter's friend does.He had a management job in sales.
I never said he was intentionally losing jobs-I SAID HE QUIT-big difference.
My kids are not starving because I TAKE CARE OF THEM (with some help from my family). He knows I would never let that happen. In fact, he relies upon it.
The "evidence"-if there is any DOES NOT prove he was laid off. All I know is he had over 100k (part from me) and he has nothing to show for it. Plus he was ordered to hand over his income documentation-so I know exactly what he earned.
The point of my question was to find out if it matters in the eyes of the court whether he quit or was laid off. That simple.
And, yes, he is a louse. If you had been married to him I am sure you would agree. Not everything in life is "logical".
|
Jada
Platinum
Reged: 06/02/07
Posts: 3317
|
|
[quote]The point of my question was to find out if it matters in the eyes of the court whether he quit or was laid off. That simple. [/quote]
Yes, it would matter. If he quit, the courts will probably impute income to him (to what he was making in the job he quit)when calculating child support. In other words, if he files for modification based on his lower income and you are able to prove that he voluntarily quit the higher paying job, he's not going to get the child support lowered.
|
KGrow
Platinum
Reged: 01/27/06
Posts: 3153
Loc: Colorado
|
|
What Jada says is all well and true but also possibly irrelevant. The man is already $12,000 behind in support. Imputed income will mean that arrears will continue accumulate at a similar rate but it doesn't improve your chances of collecting any of this money.
|
utdivorce
Gold
Reged: 02/26/07
Posts: 147
|
|
Quit or laid off it doesn't matter. What does matter is that your children are taken care of. And if he is not doing his part, maybe you should lead by example instead of crying for more $$$$.
|
justme1961
Gold
Reged: 03/11/08
Posts: 129
Loc: NH
|
|
Sorry, I am not crying for more money. I do take care of my children, shouldn't he also? They are his kids too.
|
movingon2
Platinum
Reged: 12/06/07
Posts: 209
|
|
[quote]Quit or laid off it doesn't matter. What does matter is that your children are taken care of. And if he is not doing his part, maybe you should lead by example instead of crying for more $$$$. [/quote]
Crying for more $$$$? Your statement is absurd. It appears that this person is setting a fine example to her children and doing a darn good job of taking care of them ALL BY HERSELF.
|
andyscouse
New
Reged: 02/08/08
Posts: 20
|
|
I agree - justme1961 looks as though she's doing a fine job.
In my situation, I have an ex who works at Wal-Mart, but conveniently she was admitted into a psych hospital in late 2006 to avoid paying me CS (I haven't ever received any from her, and have had the two children from the start); as the agreement stated she'd start paying me after working full time for a year (and she was admitted before the end of a full year).
Now, it appears she's doing the same, probably to try and get alimony. She was Section 12'd in Feb '08 (which I didn't find out about until Apr '08, *after* we'd done a revised visitation judgment in Mar '08!). I have motions on for May 22 to suspend her legal custody & visitation and Change the Venue to my county. Her and her lawyer better hadn't bring up alimony again, because I will fight it all the way.
Any ideas on this situation : where the non-custodial parent ends up in a psych hospital / ward of state? I don't believe I should have to pay alimony (and will not do so under any circumstance), as this would indeed be a blight to my children (and me, and my wife & her children). This is in MA, so liberal-city, I'm afraid!
Edited by andyscouse (05/19/08 11:54 AM)
|
gigi
Platinum
Reged: 11/06/06
Posts: 5049
|
|
It's VERY rare for alimony to be awarded to a non-custodial parent. The courts aren't supposed to consider the issue of whether or not there are children, but they do. Realistically, the parent who gets the kids needs to NOT be paying out money to the non-custodial parent. On the other hand, the judges MIGHT decide to set "alimony" as a fictional number to be about the amount of what child support should be, so that they'd equal each other out and the parent in psychiatric care would neither receive money nor have to pay out any.
If your children are the children of a disabled person who is likely to be a deadbeat and unable to care for the kids because of whatever emotional disability they suffer from, it's so much better to support the claim of disability and then make a claim for social security to be sent to you for "dependent of disabled" person, and have it CLEAR that you AGREE that they're disabled to the extent that they cannot properly care for the children so that (a), you'll at least get SOMETHING to help defray the financing of thier care... your ex is not likely to provide it if she's not capable of holding down a job because of her mental disability and (b), there will be no question that she will be able to come in and claim that she should be primary residential parent, because you should say her disability prevents her from being an appropriate parent (most disabilities do not prevent this, but an emotional disability is the one area that prevents a person from being an appropriate parent, being emotionally unable to provide the proper emotional support, to endure the stress of parenting, to provide a good example of how to work through stresses... not to mention the times when they may be simply incapable of getting out of bed ... as some depressive disabilities are... I'd NEVER say a person with a normal disability couldn't be a parent, but it seems that a person with YOUR EX's disability... mental ... causing her to be several states away from your children... etc... IS cause for saying she's not a fit parent).
If you're going to get nothing anyways because of her disability, why not use that information and get yourself the government aid to which your children are entitled?
|
andyscouse
New
Reged: 02/08/08
Posts: 20
|
|
Interesting, and thank you - I'll read your reply in detail ... but from what I gleaned reading it just now, that sounds excatly the kind of situation I am in!
Cheers!
|
andyscouse
New
Reged: 02/08/08
Posts: 20
|
|
Now my ex's lawyer only just sent me an email to say her client can't attend on Thu (doctor's say-so), and wants me to postpone. I have no intention of postponing, and intend to get at least the Change of Venue motion approved. I also await her lawyer trying to threaten me with fees, etc for going ahead with Thursday. She did that when requesting May 1 to be postponed (to this Thursday). I think her problem is that she's just an "of counsel" and is being "hard" to try and "prove" her worth and make partner. Well, she's got some opposition!
Am I crazy, or can a Motion go ahead in these circumstances?
|
gigi
Platinum
Reged: 11/06/06
Posts: 5049
|
|
No, "of counsel" usually is not trying to make partner. They're usually very well connected and just wanting the business structure of a larger business, the office space, etc. They tend to have thier own caseloads and reputations and are doing quite well on thier own but just want a reliable copy machine, receptionist, delivery service, billing & collections department. They're often not willing to work full time for the firm they're with or they're not willing to take the reduction in pay.
It's quite common for them to ask for you to pay thier fees if you're unreasonably not agreeing to something.
It's unreasonable to not agree to something like a continuance if they've got a reasonable conflict, like they're going to surgery or something. It's common practice... you refuse to agree to something reasonable, thereby costing her more in fees, it's only reasonable that you should pay the fees.
THe only time it's appropriate to object to a continuance when a person is scheduled for surgery is if they conveniently have surgery at the last minute every time you get within a week of a hearing... and just two missed hearings with advanced warning that she has issues that are going to keep her from the hearing are NOT enough to say that she's malingering (faking sick)... which is really what you're complaining about.
Your best bet is to object to the continuance and having them re-set for a hearing in ADVANCE of the current date to avoid your stbx's surgery times. OR to object becasue she knew or should have known of this surgery well before MOnday of a week when trial is scheduled for THursday.
If she's sick, if she needs surgery and has travel issues, you're going to look like a jerk if you dont' bend over backwards to do right by her sickness. And if what you read earlier takes, you'll understand that it might be in your best interests to accept that she is really ill.
|
andyscouse
New
Reged: 02/08/08
Posts: 20
|
|
In regard to the illness, it's a mental illness (she refuses to give details). If it were surgery, of course I would not be opposed to the request.
I allowed them a continuance on 1 May to 22 May. 3 - 4 weeks should have been plenty of time [in the psych hosptal], and they should have let me know earlier. I think she's intimidated by the fact that I am ready and willing to go pro se against her. She actually moved the motion date *before* I had called the court to do so - and as they are my motions, that is an unethical thing to do; that, and the fact she knew about her "client"'s Section 12 in Feb, but neither of them told me - the BBO will be hearing of that as well.
This lawyer can bleat all she wants for fees, but she won't get any [from me]. She thinks she's "it", and I cannot give in to that; I have my boys' wellbeing to think of, and that is of far greater import.
Therefore, I will deny her lawyer's request, and meet her face-to-face on Thursday, where we can talk this thing through, both in front of the judge and in mediation. Her "client" does not need to be there.
We shall see how "hard" she is when I call her tomorrow to tell her to appear Thursday.
|
gigi
Platinum
Reged: 11/06/06
Posts: 5049
|
|
I understand wanting to have a game face on, and trash talking the opponent, but it does not work well in court. Consider showing some respect and consideration for the fact that this woman is working in the same field as the judge is trained, and disrespect for that field is probably counterproductive to your cause if it makes the judge think you are being arrogant about things.
Your children need you to be showing what a reasonable, responsible parent you are who wants to encourage the maximum reasonable contact between them and their other parent. You can't help it that she's a nutcase (don't use that word) and neither can they, so there may be some kind of accomodations needed.
If she is in a mental hospital, committed or in some program, then she may very well not be out in 3 weeks. Lots of programs require a minimum of 28 days.
Your best bet here is to ask why the hell they didn't disclose to you that it was a mental disorder, why they didn't know about the ened for a second continuance before hand, when they think they WILL be ready to hear this case or are they contemplating delaying it into infinity. And if they have a reasonable answer, like, "we can go next week", then go with that...
Be reasonable, a little contrite, not at all arrogant. You'll see the best lawyers... the best ones who have been trained with 3 years of post-college law school, who have lots of experience in front of judges, who win thier cases.... are not at ALL arrogant, do NOT browbeat people, will act almost solicitous of others in and around the courtroom. When a pro-se person walks in with a chip on their shoulder about how much better they're prepared than the stupid paid lawyer on the other side... it's generally not a good result.
I know you're about to say, "I don't have a chip on my shoulder about the act that she's got a lawyer..." but the thing is, what you've said... it looks an AWFUL lot like you've got a chip on your shoulder about it. I understand... game face & trash talk and being aggressive and not backing down & all... but... it combines to look like a chip on your shoulder and you might want to tone it down ... at least for when you come face to face.
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
